Can Platonic Love Be Just As Powerful As Romantic Love?

[dawson]

Definitely. I'm sure if you asked many happily married people this (and made them answer totally honestly instead of saying "I can't choose"), many would say they loved their partner the most, but many would say their children, parents, etc.

[TheKindredSoul]

Ok, I've resisted as long as I can. *grabs soap box*

Platonic love does not mean non-romantic or non-sexual. Platonic relationships refers to the relationship ideal posited by Plato. To Plato relationships should be based upon the emotional and spiritual development of those involved; The form of the relationship is not important. So it is entirely possible to have sexual and romantic platonic relationships.

Given that, true platonic relationships would always be stronger than non Platonic relationships.

*kicks soap box away*

Most of my friendships are Platonic, my romantic relationships in the past have not.

According to the dictionary, platonic love is about Plato and his ideas, but it does also mean non-sexual love.

Right, under which definition Romantic love can be platonic or it can be sexual. you know the term "bromance"? It describes a platonic, romantic relationship between friends.

Romance between friends? I've never heard of such things. I'd rather have aromantic relationships with my friends..

[sockattack]

Ok, I've resisted as long as I can. *grabs soap box*

Platonic love does not mean non-romantic or non-sexual. Platonic relationships refers to the relationship ideal posited by Plato. To Plato relationships should be based upon the emotional and spiritual development of those involved; The form of the relationship is not important. So it is entirely possible to have sexual and romantic platonic relationships.

Given that, true platonic relationships would always be stronger than non Platonic relationships.

*kicks soap box away*

Most of my friendships are Platonic, my romantic relationships in the past have not.

According to the dictionary, platonic love is about Plato and his ideas, but it does also mean non-sexual love.

Right, under which definition Romantic love can be platonic or it can be sexual. you know the term "bromance"? It describes a platonic, romantic relationship between friends.

Romance between friends? I've never heard of such things. I'd rather have aromantic relationships with my friends..

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Romantic_friendship I think this may be the type of friendship they mean...which basically boils down to 'A friendship that is closer than is considered the norm in western societies', including things like holding hands, cuddling, or sharing a bed [in some romantic friendships, by no means *all* of them.]

[Beachwalker]

Huh love is platonic, love is just love, love hasn't got anything to do with sex, has it?

[Chveya]

I think there is a wide spectrum of love intensity, for both platonic and romantic. One is not inherently better or stronger than another. If you love your partner to furthest reaches of platonic love, even if romantic love can get a little deeper, that's still a huge amount of emotion that shouldn't be belittled. You can love each other equally, even if it's in different ways. Focus more on if you have the same level of concern, empathy, and attachment to each other instead of labeling the type of love.

[The Gael of the North]

wow, I'm shocked at how similar your situation sounds to mine. especially with the poetry part. I totally read that thinking "damn, so I'm not the only one?".

I think true and strong platonic love can be even more powerful than romantic love. I mean, sure, people in love always talk about how they'd catch all those grenades for their significant other... but how many actually would? I find that many people who are in romantic love, or at least claim to be, wouldn't make sacrifices that big for their lovers. meanwhile, think of a mother's platonic love -> think of how much ANY mother gives her child, sacrificing her own time and even health, sometimes. and it's not just a mother's love, IMO.

well, here I am, the kid who's only been in one, really short failure-of-a-relationship, the one who only kissed a guy when she was completely wasted. but that doesn't mean I can't love - in fact, the squish I have right now is ten times more powerful than any feeling I've ever had towards anyone. if she needed help I'd carry her home at 3:00 in the morning with a bullet in my leg, even if it was the last thing I'd ever do. I write her poems, loads of them, in fact (yay, similarity to your situation!) and although I know that she'll never reciprocate the love in the same way (she's definitely not asexual. i mean, she likes me - platonically - but it's not the love that I feel towards her) I still dream of a day that she'll spend with me and me alone, and we'll go exploring some old castles together and then sit with our feet in the sea, drinking beer together. and if she ever needs anything, I'll be there for her.

this was a long rant... sorry but i hope it answered the question!

[ithaca]

Moving thread from Asexual Q&A to Asexual Relationships.

[cold_moon_rising]

I don´t think romantic love is stronger and more powerful than other kinds of love. What about mother´s love to their kids? Love between sister and brother? Is one type of love superior to others? I don´t believe it is. They are just different.

I would subscribe to this 100%. Actually my three stabs at romance have never ever ever come even close to the kind of closeness and comfort that I feel with my best friends and really that fact eventually led to the demise of each short lived attempt. Though possibly because I subscribed to the idea that so called 'romantic love' must be superior to 'platonic love' and when it didn't....well...

Ok, I've resisted as long as I can. *grabs soap box*

Platonic love does not mean non-romantic or non-sexual. Platonic relationships refers to the relationship ideal posited by Plato. To Plato relationships should be based upon the emotional and spiritual development of those involved; The form of the relationship is not important. So it is entirely possible to have sexual and romantic platonic relationships.

Given that, true platonic relationships would always be stronger than non Platonic relationships.

*kicks soap box away*

Most of my friendships are Platonic, my romantic relationships in the past have not.

I have also heard it said that Plato meant platonic love to MEAN (maybe in spirit not letter) sexual relationships and that we've turned the meaning around in modern life. Eh, doesn't that just mean that the definition of romantic or platonic love is pretty flexible? I think people just create their own hierarchy of love (if they need it) and put whatever they value the most on top. And then NOT force that hierarchy on someone else. -_-

[1helluvabutlr]

The way I experience love is not like others, I don't have this " I love you to pieces thing." or this sweeping feeling that takes over me and that I cannot let go of. I do not understand that kind of feeling I am an INTP I am very logical, I fancy people for who they are and how happy they make me and how well we get along. I am sure that can be a huge emotion that is indeed strong but I will not be blinded towards, many can call this platonic in feeling but I can act romantically on it. So, I think seeing that this is all I felt for people, I am sure that I can fancy someone for a very long time yet not have this I fell for this person head over heels because of the way they looked smelled or because I talked to them twice or some times. Some people that I met are in relationships just because of that, "they make me tingle when they touch me." something like this. For me it's personality that counts, that is ever lasting.

There is no wrong way to love as long as you are not hurting anyone, everyone is unique and everyone has their own way to love. I just had to say that before someone says I am being mean or foolish calling others relationships not well. I do not understand some relationships they are interesting though.

[Great Thief Yatagarasu]

Most people above me have more-or-less said what I planned too. Yes it can.

I love the friendship between Harry and Hermione in the Harry Potter series, especially the books.

I love this scene from the last movie too:

I thought I'd responded to this, but apparently I haven't. Yes, I think platonic love is just as powerful as romantic love. Just look at Denny Crane and Allan Shore.

And I always thought that scene was hilarious. They just look so uncomfortable and awkward, I can't help but find it funny.

[781229]

It can definitely be just as powerful. When you find a soulmate, it doesn't matter who they are, or what your relationship is. I also don't think a person is limited to one soulmate! I have one in my mother, my grandmother, and my best friend. And a few other people in my life that I really love.

My best friend and I are just friends, but we still totally adore each other, and we get mushy about it too, hahaha. Just tonight we were stargazing and talking about how we have a tough time finding people who understand us as well as we do each other. And we've both heard it from our parents: "So, you know, you two, are you ... ?"

But it isn't like that, no matter how couple-ish we act, and that's totally okay. Real love doesn't just come in "family" and "spouse" formats.

[kaaaarl]

Easily!!!! My best friend and I are so close it isn't funny. He's straight, but we would snuggle for an hour and a half and I'd love it and he'd like it. The amount of love I have for the guy isn't even funny. Most people wouldn't get it, but still. It is just as strong as romantic love, easily.

[Guest]

I find it difficult to even see romance as "real" love, let alone the "most powerful" one. In my experience, the more I succeeded in banishing romance from my life, the more I came to feel love, and share love.

So, to me, the answer to the opening question is. "Duh! Rather ask that one the other way around..." :lol:

Unless "powerful" is to explicitly mean "overwhelming to the point of destroying all values and reason in the mind of the poor sod feeling it". Then yes, romance is tons more powerful than love... and that's exactly why I'm not allowing it into my life while I have the choice.

[Regime]

I'm pretty sure it can.

If my sister was in trouble I would do anything to help her so I guess that's equal to or stronger than any so called romantic love.

Although I also have to add that I don't know if I'm capable of feeling romantic love so I may not be the most qualified to speak on this subject.

[Oswald]

Of COURSE platonic love is more powerful. I've never been bent up over losing any of my failed attempts at romantic relationships as much as I have over lost friendships. Like a few others have said, when I lose friends, especially if it's because they'd get totally overwhelmed by the chemical processes involved in romance, you'd swear I'd just been dumped. Mysticus has the right idea, I think.

[Bye Bye Birdy]

x

[Guest]

Ah, so you're defining "romance" is just the feeling of "being in love", basically? I wouldn't even call that "love", per se. I think of love (all varieties of it) as something active, not just something that's passively experienced. Romantic love, as I've always seen it, is just a different expression of love. It's an arbitrary distinction, if you really think about it. I think traditional romantic relationships just tend to be more all-consuming than a person's platonic or familial relationships, but it doesn't necessarily HAVE to be so.

I've struggled mightly with understanding what "being in love" is to mean, anyway.

That may well be a language thing, though - native German speaker here, and the usual German translation of "being in love" is "verliebt in jemanden sein", which has connotations more akin to "having a crush on someone". I've come to accept that "b.i.l." probably means something like what's there between me and my partner, which has thankfully been free from crushy, romantic feelings all through our four years together. We most definitely love each other; we're possibly (probably?) "in love with" each other; neither of us is "verliebt" in the other. I still keep wondering. Meh, language informs thought. *shrugs*

[FrozenCherry]

Yes it can.

[Bye Bye Birdy]

x

[snufflebottoms]

Does it matter what we think? Not trying to be rude, but think about it. You have feelings and you know that they are intense. There is love and maybe it's not like being in love (romance) or sexual/atheistic attraction (physical love) but it is the deepest love you have ever felt. For you, sexuality, physicality, or romanticism would not add to this love. It's spiritual and whether or not it's romantic matters not. Some relationships have different aspects but there is no measuring stick to judge their "depth" or "power."

[Guest]

Yeah, it's very similar to "having a crush" on someone. I think the main difference is that the connotation of "being in love" is that it's more intense, or deep, (or something). Sure, there's some variation in the usage of the phrase, but I mean when people say "being in love" in a sense close to what's called limerence: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Limerence

I don't call that love. It can be channeled towards love, but it's still just a largely involuntary reaction.

:D I actually had a talk with my partner about limerence once, when she was feeling it for someone else (we're poly).

Limerence, to me, is part of the crush/"verliebt" emotional cluster... and one of the things I desperately avoid when I say strive to keep my life free from romance, one which I certainly do not call "love", and which I'm glad to never have felt with R.; so if you equate them, then by your definition I am not and have not ever been in love with R.. [neutral/factual voice]

Your post is the first time I've heard it mentioned as a part of the English term "being in love", though... but then again, how many people ever use the word limerence, anyway, in either English or German?. *back to confused now* :lol:

[LifeDontAnimate]

love is what you make it to be. If you don't have romantic love your platonic love would have a much bigger impact on you then somebody who has romantic love. I don't think it's right to suggest that someone's love inst as strong just because they don't have romantic feelings. I do have romantic feelings but I think no matter what everybody feels a different state of love no matter whether they are sexual , aromantic or romantic.

Romantics could argue that they have a stronger love because they have a romantic bond however love is purely a euphoria and something that cant really be measured. You could say you love somebody a lot but then if you tried comparing it with somebody else your ideology of a lot is actually really small when compared but for you it is alot. So it's more about how people feel individually as everyone can feel different in a relationship you can be in a relationship where they don't love you to the extent you love them but they love you as much as they can.

The answer is yes it can be as powerful as romantic love because its about how to individuals feel and how they can both get along what gives them that euphoria on the level that suits them.

[Notte stellata]

Yeah, it's very similar to "having a crush" on someone. I think the main difference is that the connotation of "being in love" is that it's more intense, or deep, (or something). Sure, there's some variation in the usage of the phrase, but I mean when people say "being in love" in a sense close to what's called limerence: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Limerence

I don't call that love. It can be channeled towards love, but it's still just a largely involuntary reaction.

:D I actually had a talk with my partner about limerence once, when she was feeling it for someone else (we're poly).

Limerence, to me, is part of the crush/"verliebt" emotional cluster... and one of the things I desperately avoid when I say strive to keep my life free from romance, one which I certainly do not call "love", and which I'm glad to never have felt with R.; so if you equate them, then by your definition I am not and have not ever been in love with R.. [neutral/factual voice]

Your post is the first time I've heard it mentioned as a part of the English term "being in love", though... but then again, how many people ever use the word limerence, anyway, in either English or German?. *back to confused now* :lol:

I'm not a native English speaker either, and I'm still confused by these semantics sometimes. Once I saw a match question on OkCupid: "Is there any difference between loving someone and being in love with someone?" I answered "not sure". Then, from reading forums, I came to see "being in love" as the state of initial romantic attraction, or infatuation, or limerence. It's just a phase and a specific stage of romantic love IMO.

I don't think the word limerence is widely used. It's a coined term. But most people seem to agree on what "in love" means.

[azureorb]

Maybe because I am aromantic and cannot feel romantic love, it is beyond my knowledge, or maybe because I am in denial when I say that because I want my squish to love me the way I love her, or maybe it's a mixture of both (I go with the third thing I said). I have such a deep love for my squish (platonic/aromantic love for her), but I always wonder how she feels truly.

You aren't what you identify yourself as. Or what you think you feel. It's what you DO feel. Scrap belonging, fellowship, pride, etc. What DO you feel? THEN identify yourself, objectively. You'll struggle in life if you do it backwards in a biased way.

If you're TRULY aromantic, whether you're sexual or asexual, your love won't be greater than one has with the closest love you have for a family member (if you're north of the Mason-Dixon line!). It's platonic. If you have romantic love toward someone, it's not platonic (in the common sense).

I don't think you're aromantic. Maybe for most. But not for this one, thus you're not purely aromantic, if you love her in a different, more intimate way than a kid sister, mom, close platonic friend, etc.

If you have romantic feelings for someone, it's not platonic. In fact, there's a sexual-attraction basis for it. Sexual attraction doesn't mean feelings to want to have sex necessarily. Sexual doesn't refer to having s-e-x.

Romantic love can be platonic or it can be sexual. you know the term "bromance"? It describes a platonic, romantic relationship between friends.

I disagree. "Bromance" is a slang term where two guys are so close it's LIKE they're romantic, but they're not. Used to razz people. It can separately be used to mean a romantic non-platonic relationship of two guys (homosexual or bisexual) but that's not where it started.

Here's the thing: If you have non-platonic feelings for someone, you're not truly asexual. TRUE romance has a sexual basis. One can be attracted to romantic atmospheres and things that are deemed romantic surrounding it but not feel that way toward the person or inclined for romantic atmospheres/settings to be pointed at them -- that feeling can be asexual.

But in the context of partnership -- if you have romantic feelings, you have non-platonic* feelings for them, and it has a sexual basis for it. Just because you don't have feelings for or are attracted to the notion of physical sexual engagement with that person, doesn't mean at the core you're purely asexual. Obviously there's a big part that's missing that can be found in most people -- but you're not purely asexual.

Non-platonic touching/intimacy = Sexual

Non-platonic kissing = Sexual

Non-platonic emotions = Sexual

*Modern-day version of platonic: Where the feelings are "just friends" -- no attraction. You wouldn't be jealous of your partner being & feeling JUST FRIENDS with someone who feels like JUST FRIENDS. As in not-in-that-way. Non-Platonic is where you have feelings in-that-way, beyond just-friends.

[The Great WTF]

Please do not revive threads that are more than six months old. I will be locking this thread for necromancy and would like to remind everyone that judging someone else's identity is against AVEN's ToS.

The Great WTF
Asexual Relationships Moderator